Working groups considering fundamental questions concerning the pursuit of transparency in qualitative empirical research, which cut across the particular forms of research in which qualitative scholars engage

This cluster of working groups is focused on approaches to transparency when working with two kinds of empirical sources commonly considered by qualitative researchers. "Transparency" is understood here in a broad sense as encompassing all types of openness, explicitness, or clarity that scholars might adopt to help others make sense of, build on, or evaluate research processes or outputs. These working groups will principally focus on two aspects of transparency. They will examine transparency about how observations have been made, including how empirical sources have been selected and accessed or how evidence has been generated. The working groups in this cluster will also address when, why, and how scholars' records of those processes can or should be shared with or made easily findable to others. Recognizing that any particular kind of empirical material can be analyzed in different ways, these working groups will not presume any specific analytical methodology.

Forum rules

We encourage contributors to the Discussion Board to publicly identify by registering and logging in prior to posting. However, if you prefer, you may post anonymously (i.e. without having your post be attributed to you) by posting without logging in. Anonymous posts will display only after a delay to allow for administrator review. Contributors agree to the QTD Terms of Use.

InstructionsTo participate, you may either post a contribution to an existing discussion by selecting the thread for that topic (and then click on "Post Reply") or start a new thread by clicking on "New Topic" below.

For instructions on how to follow a discussion thread by email, click here.

Forum

Statistics

Last post

II.1. Text-based sourcesThe focus of this working group is on text-based sources, including both primary and secondary texts. What are current and best practices for being transparent about the search for and selection of written sources? How should written sources (both empirical and theoretical) be cited and how should scholars provide information about the sources’ origins and production? What are the costs of and limits to such transparency? And when, why, and how can and should this evidence be made available to others?

In addition to documentary evidence, this WG will consider the above questions as they relate to non-documentary forms of evidence not drawn from the researcher’s own first-hand observation of or interactions with human participants, including photographic, film, and human-artifact-based materials and the study of built environments. This group will also examine and compare technologies and infrastructure that might aid scholars wishing to share details about their sources (e.g., "meaty footnotes") or to share the sources themselves (e.g., "active citation," data repositories).

II.2. Evidence from researcher interactions with human participantsThe focus of this working group is on evidence that comes from first-hand observations of, or interactions with human participants, including formal as well as informal, unstructured interviews; observation of/participation in meetings/events; and non-interview interactions with human subjects, including surveys. (Ethnography is the focus of a separate working group.) This working group will, in particular, focus on two potential types of transparency with such evidence: transparency about how scholars have made observations or generated evidence through research with human participants; and questions of when, why, and how this evidence can or should be made available or easily findable to others.

This working group's deliberations will consider the circumstances under which, and the reasons why, researchers might share elements of their interactions with human participants; why, when, and how researchers can/should be transparent about the process of collecting interview and survey evidence or about the nature of their engagements with research participants; the costs of and limits to transparency in these areas; and ways of being transparent with research participants themselves. This working group will also investigate and assess technologies and infrastructure that might aid scholars wishing to share evidence from first-hand observations of, or interactions with, human participants.